Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fraud, by any definition, involves a deliberate intention to decieve. Are you sure that is what you mean?. Yet you continue to try and perpetrate the fraud.
Lol.If you can prove evolution wrong there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. Good luck.
current figures demonstrate over 10000 to 1 random negative impacts to positive impacts).
Misses the point.Even if true what would that signify? The whole point of evolution is the survival of positive traits because they give the organism an edge in survival and reproduction.
Why would a large number of harmful or non advantageous mutations be of any concern to evolution process ? They would simply die out.
Like most of the species have throughout the history.
Please read the first paragraph of that paper. There is "suggestion and unknowns admitted from the start. Also the word similarities is there. Once again evolution in this case is assumed. The similarities mean nothing. It's assumed the fusion took place but it is not proven that it did. One more piece of evidence that evolutionists assume something happened. With no real way of proving it did. As I have said, it's an assumption and continues to be. Similarities do not mean anything in this case. It's a classical case of common design but not common ancestry.More mischaracterization.
The fusion is a conclusion:
Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
"Adaption"?
Yes, you throw out a tag line, but other than tossing out a slogan to counter evolution, what logic or rationale is there for this fusion?
What possible "design" does it reflect?
we wouldn't expect the experimental data to show such difficulties producing traits that would confer survival benefits!
Well good point. It's obvious he believes it with all his heart. So even though the idea is a fraud he is not the person knowingly committing the fraud. I guess you could say he is the victim of the fraud. So point takenFraud, by any definition, involves a deliberate intention to decieve. Are you sure that is what you mean?
what important parts? if a single trait can evolve by convergent evolution why several traits cant? this is my main point. and indeed we found such an example:Why did you cut out the rest of my post? Seriously, you aren't going to even respond to the important parts?
Still, if it's a fraud it is still a deliberate attempt to decieve on someone's part. Who do you think is the perpetrator?Well good point. It's obvious he believes it with all his heart. So even though the idea is a fraud he is not the person knowingly committing the fraud. I guess you could say he is the victim of the fraud. So point taken
Science in general. It doesn't mean one person is at fault. What the fraudulent part is about is the utter dismissal of anything that is contrary to the theory. We see that all the time is science. Particularly in the evolutionary sciences.Still, if it's a fraud it is still a deliberate attempt to decieve on someone's part. Who do you think is the perpetrator?
RandomeInteresting. Why wouldn't we expect that ?
Mutations are inherently random.
For any single scenario for survival there must logically be far more mutations that are not really suitable for these specific circumstances than some mutation that actually helps organism to survive and thrive.
Like throwing 12 sided dice when only number 7 is a pass. The likelihood of rolling other 11 numbers , possibly multiple times is statistically far greater.
actually the fixation rate and problems related to producing a beneficial trait in a population are problematic due to time.Interesting. Why wouldn't we expect that ?
Mutations are inherently random.
For any single scenario for survival there must logically be far more mutations that are not really suitable for these specific circumstances than some mutation that actually helps organism to survive and thrive.
Like throwing 12 sided dice when only number 7 is a pass. The likelihood of rolling other 11 numbers , possibly multiple times is statistically far greater.
Randome
actually the fixation rate and problems related to producing a beneficial trait in a population are problematic due to time.
There is not enough time in many populations to produce enough positive survivable traits to account for the major moves in speciation. No problem with small organisms that reproduce quickly such as bacteria. But significant problems with more complex creatures such as mammals that reproduce a handful of times in a lifetime.
He's "on to something" because if there were a better theory for the biodiversity and distribution of life on earth, we would know about it... "firing" someone doesn't suppress the truth.Lol.
Perhaps not. Perhaps you would lose your job as a professor, like many have. Just as classic liberalism has been taboo in many colleges since the 1970s, and historical inferences that are in any way pro Western European about any topic, we find that for every epistemic category there are men and women wearing priestly garments proclaiming their right to control "knowledge."
But you received a bunch of "likes" and a "winner" so you must be on to something.
Strange. My friends in departments of theoretical mathematics talk about publishing "Contraversial theories" in mathematics can be career limiting, but you are not granting a research field like evolution is controversial?He's "on to something" because if there were a better theory for the biodiversity and distribution of life on earth, we would know about it... "firing" someone doesn't suppress the truth.
Who’s the #1 molecular evolutionist that was fired?Strange. My friends in departments of theoretical mathematics talk about publishing "Contraversial theories" in mathematics can be career limiting, but you are not granting a research field like evolution is controversial?
Do you think that when the number one molecular evolutionist is fired that doesn't slow people who are researching from publish findings that disconfirm the theory. Follow Eugenie Scott NSF and ask if any grants will be awarded to someone who doesn't support a NeoDarwinian inference?
Your inference sounds like something out of Pravda.
LuciferWho’s the #1 molecular evolutionist that was fired?
Very different from modern humans. Much smaller brains, among other things.how so? the first human (homo genus) is about 3 my old. fit pretty well with my estimation.
The prediction I've been very specific about. The one we're talking about, and for which you just offered an attempt at a creationist explanation. The prediction that interspecies genetic differences would show the same pattern of differences as intraspecies differences.what prediction? be specific.
What will we find relevant to the subject we're actually talking about?that orangutan is more different then the chimp compare with human.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?